Zuma may be forced to break silence on graft
Ex-president and the Guptas to respond to claims at commission
Day one of the Zondo Commission essentially confirmed what everyone knew: former president Jacob Zuma, his son Duduzane and his friends the Gupta family are all implicated in so-called state capture corruption.
And Zuma and his son will have to give evidence, if they have any hope or intention of challenging the claims made against them.
As yet, Zuma, his son and the Guptas are still deciding how they will respond to the allegations levelled against them, and if they will formally apply to cross-examine their accusers.
At this stage, the accusations against them rest solely on the evidence of former ANC MP Vytjie Mentor and former Government Communication and Information Systems (GCIS) CE Themba Maseko, but lawyers for the Guptas have already indicated that they expect to face further accusations.
Mentor has claimed she was offered the post of public enterprise minister by the Gupta family at their Saxonwold home, with Zuma present in the house. The post was occupied by former ANC MP Barbara Hogan at the time.
Maseko claims he was pressured by the Gupta family to place government ads in their then newspaper, the New Age.
He told 702 that Ajay told him: “I can see you are being difficult, I will talk to your superiors and you will be sorted out. Ajay Gupta demanded me to put money in their companies.”
He claims that before his meeting with Ajay, Zuma told him to “help” the Guptas.
Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane on Monday told deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo that Zuma wanted an opportunity to respond to the evidence given by Maseko, Mentor and deputy director of GCIS Phumla Williams. But he added that Zuma would need time to decide how to respond and had only received notices that he was implicated by Mentor and Maseko’s evidence on August 3.
“The issue that makes this difficult for us is that we have raised questions, a lot of questions… to obtain certain documents because we want to make a meaningful participation in this very important process.
“So what we’ve asked for are documents that we believe will make it easier for us to know what case we have to meet.”
Following requests by the legal teams representing Zuma and the Guptas, inquiry lawyers have agreed to provide them with “evidence bundles” revenant to the claims against them.
Sikhakhane said Zuma’s team wanted time to be able to make a decision on whether he should make a written statement to the commission. If Zuma provides such a statement, it will be the first time he has responded under oath to state capture allegations against him.
Zuma has never given a substantive response to allegations that he essentially outsourced his power to fire and hire ministers to the Guptas, and did so to support their and his son’s business interests.
Should Zuma disagree with the evidence given by Mentor, Maseko or Williams, his lawyers will have to formally apply for the right to cross-examine the witness or witnesses whose evidence he disputes. He can be subpoenaed to give evidence, or may elect to do so voluntarily.
What is crucial is that any cross-examination that disputes Zuma’s involvement in alleged state capture will have to be backed up by the testimony of Zuma himself.
And that’s why Zuma’s lawyers will have to think long and hard about if, how and to what degree they involve him in the inquiry.
Also making a request for more time was Jaap Cilliers SC, acting on behalf of “arms deal fixer” Fana Hlongwane, who has been accused of facilitating a meeting between the Guptas and former deputy finance minister Mcebisi Jonas.
Dawie Joubert and Mike Hellens SC, for Ajay Gupta, said: “We are awaiting instructions on behalf of Mr Duduzane Zuma and Mr Rajesh Gupta, also in relation to the evidence of Mr Jonas. Hopefully, early next week we will get clarification on that.”